Adam Paul

Thanks guys. I will ask them then.

That will be hard as they are not local to me.

In any case, theoretically and or technically, what would you recommend?

So for a CRT (Celco) transfer of 720p material, would you recommend intermediate or camera negative for the best quality and sharpness?

And what stock?

Thanks.

I was looking at a CRT transfer. I would like to go for the stock that would give me the sharpest image since it's just 720p.

By what you said, camera negative would add more of a film look while intermediate would look closer to a straight digital projection?

I see that normally transfer houses offer the option of either intermediate stock or camera negative when transferring HD to 35mm film.

What are the advantages of one over the other and would types of stock in general (fast, slow etc) impact the quality or look of the transfer as it would if it was originally shot on the stock with a 35mm camera?

What Digital Cine camera has a 1" sensor?

Tiffen has an affordable software version of their filters to similate their effects digitally. I think the cheaper version would be useful to give still shots the same filtered look planned for the project.

I wonder if it would also have fx that depend on lighting as fog or smoque? If so, how would it work? I don't think it would replace the real thing would it?

I thought Kinor was a sound sync camera and the Konvas was the MOS.

On their website the lights are listed as being for photography and video.

But light is light :)

They look quite different from the ones on the manufacturer?s website I gave the link to above. They must be an older model or something. They are actually round instead of square. Much more compact. Here?s an example that looks similar but the ones I tested were black and had barnboors etc.

http://www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org/phot...xe_on_table.JPG

http://www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org/phot...ngsten_lamp.jpg

I would never buy lights that I haven't already used or demoed.

 

Try them out first and see if you like them.

I tested the lights today. I have to say they are great and put out a LOT of light for their size.

They are pretty solid and well built and come with barndoors and a gel frame.

The beam although not as wide as a Redhead on full flood is wider than most fresnels on flood. Since they don?t focus it?s actually a good mid range angle, neither really wide nor too narrow.

What I like most is the possibility of going from a 600w open faced to a 1250w or 1850w with the switch of a button. You can actually fit any combination of two bulbs up to 1250w each. With two 1250w bulbs working together it really kicks out some serious light, perfect for bouncing or diffusing from large surfaces. They are fan cooled which really helps keeping them cool.

All together I think I like it better than Redheads. Although Redheads are ?focusable? it?s not that big of a deal since you have to bounce or diffuse them anyways. Besides that, these lights are much more flexible than Redheads and at half the price I think it?s a non-brainer. If I need broader lights for background/set etc I have broads and if I need a focusable light I have fresnels, from Betweenies to Juniors (and I?ve been lusting after a pepper 100 and a Senior, although I can?t really justify the need for a Senior with they type of shooting I do). What I was after was some open faced lights as I only have a single Teenie Weenie. So I was (initially) after some Redheads. But I?m glad I found these.

They also seem great to use with a softbox because of the compact size.

Thanks for the input.

Anybody has something else to add?

Thanks for replying.

So are you guys saying you would take the 800W Redheads for the double of the price instead?

Since no matter what an open faced really can't be thrown directly on talent and will most likely be bounced, I can't see the advantage of the Redheads over these. These are more flexible (two independent bulbs with independent switches on each side, can be equipped with different wattage bulbs on each side) have more output (max 2500w each) and are half the price. What are the advantages you see on the Redheads?

Or if have you never used these lights, I would still appreciate your opinion on these vs. the Redheads kit based on your knowledge of Redheads and the specs and pictures of the Hedler lights on the link I provided. ;)

We had issues exactly consistent with back-focus problems. And this was on a JVC HD251, which is supposed to be more or less immune from that problem - certainly there's not much adjustment beyond just doing up the lens mount. I am very concerned that the additional mountings that screw into the camera's conventional 1/4" tripod thread may also put undue stress on the assembly, leading to optical alignment problems.

 

And the graininess is very odd. Camera settings were very low contrast, but still, the 251 images I've posted here before didn't show it. Certainly we have a minority of shots which are convincing 720p images, and some which are a strange, soft, grainy mess. I have no real idea what's going on.

 

Within the limits of having the sharpness almost completely turned off on the camera, there's nothing much wrong with this other than a bit of grain:

 

 

But what the bloody hell is going on here:

 

 

 

I mean, when it works, it's great. But I want to spend a very careful day prepping before I use it again.

 

Phil

Phil, are you talking about the Mini35 or M2? The Mini35 for the HD251 has the relay, which the focus ring can be locked down. Once I lock it never drifts out of focus. It's actually pretty solid once you tight that screw up.

About the second shot, it may seem like an obvious thing, but are you sure the ground glass was ON? I get grain like this when I forget to turn the adapter ON, which quite frankly happens more often than I would like, especially in the beginning of the day.

By the way, IMO I don?t think the Mini35 base plate and mounting puts any stress on the camera mount. It fits pretty well. I?m mean, it?s that easy to mess the optical alignment? Or are you talking long term here?

Yes, that's true of the Mini35 on those cameras, and also true of the Pro35 on 2/3" cameras. It's one reason why the P+S Technik costs more than the M2.

 

The Redrock M2 however needs to use the camera's stock lens, with all cameras. And in the case of the HVX and DVX (regardless which brand adapter), nothing can prevent the focus from drifting since the camera's focus is not mechanically linked to the focus ring.

Yeah, the M2 has a lot of shortcomings.

Redrock actually advises to tape the focus ring down. :D

Has anybody used or heard of these?: http://www.hedler.com/produkte/h-leuchte/h-lightunits.htm

I was offered a good deal on a kit with a couple of those, complete with barndoors etc.

I was out for some open faced lights and was eyeballing a kit with 800w Redheads, barndoors and stands but then I was offered this. The number of fixtures is the same. The difference is the Redheads come with stands and cost almost the double. The Hedler kit comes without stands but can go up to 2500w each. Besides putting out more light they take two bulbs of up to 1250w each, which you can turn on independently. You can also have different wattage bulbs in the same fixture making it a quite flexible light. I have enough stands already and I?m thinking those would be more useful than the Redheads and they are much cheaper. Opinions would be greatly appreciated.

It's not so much the focus pulling with the taking lens, but the camera focus on the spinning ground glass that's usually at issue with these things. Without an HD monitor to re-check focus on the groundglass with EVERY setup (it drifts), you have no way of knowing if you've got the focus you really need for HD.

I can see back focus being a problem when using the Mini35 with the HVX200. But when used with the JVC HD100 or Canon XL2 and XL-H1, as the mini35 has a dedicated relay lens for these cameras back focus is not a problem. The relay lens has a screw to lock the focus down. Once you adjust it in the beginning of the day you just tight the screw and back focus is safe.

The light I'm looking at, Paglight, is actually focusable from flood to spot and also has barndoors, a daylight filter and a frosted diffuser. So it's pretty controlable.

Here's the link: http://www.paguk.com/C6_Orbitor/C6information.htm

Interesting you recommended a tweenie. I was afraid even a pepper could be too much and would look too much like a spot on the face. Hence why I was thinking about getting a camera light with a 35w bulb to mount on the top of the cameras. Although it would be a frontal light, 35w is not a lot when the key would be 1k or 2k and I think it could be just enough to bring the eyes out o the shadows. But then again maybe 35w wouldn't even make a difference against the 1k or 2k key. The problem is that I can't really test now because I don't have a camera light. I was going to buy one for this purpose. Do you think the 35w bulb would be enough or too less against a 1k to 2k key?

Thanks David.

Yeah, I will get 1 & 2 then. If I need a stronger effect I can just stack them both up. Hopefully it won't cut too much light for the night exteriors.

On another note, since we are talking here already, I have a lighting related question and I thought I would just ask it here instead of opening a new thread for it. In case it grows too much within this thread maybe the mods can break it up.

The singer in the video has really deep eye sockets and I can see it will be a problem with the low key high contrast style we are going for. I thought of maybe using some sort of eyelight. But I don't want to flatten the shot. Reading your Cinematography by you and Kris, I seem to recall you guys recommending something like a camera light as eyelight to fill sockets. So I was thinking of suing a Paglight on the top of the camera for that. They came in 20w and 35w bulbs. But I'm afraid it may look too much like a spot on the face. Another idea is to just have a china ball bellow the singer off frame to fill the sockets, like a bottom to top light. But as it's soft light it may wash the contrast too. I'm not so worried in giving the eyes any spark or shine. More worried about not letting his eyes in the dark.

It will be shot in HD with a Mini35 by the way. Probably lit to T4.

Any advice?

Hey David,

I decided to bring this thread up again since I now really have to get some smoque filters.

I have a music video to shoot where I was asked to give it a foggy London kind of mood. There will be fog machines too, although just the kind you buy in party stores or Home Depot. So I thought this would be a good opportunity to finally get my smoque filters. The video is composed of night interiors and exteriors (with the foggy London effect).

Would you recommend getting a smoque 1 & 2 or rather get 2 & 3? Maybe 1&2 is not a bad idea since I can stack them up and probably get a #3 effect. I have the feeling 4 is too strong, but I may be wrong.

I suppose a stronger filter will be needed to get the foggy effect on establishing and wider shots and a weaker one for the medium and actor?s close ups?

Also, I suppose the filter will have to be lit from the edges to get the effect?

Another question is, should I use the fog machines together with the filters or will it interfere with the effect somehow?

Just remember that they react to the light sources in the frame and on the edges of the frame to create the smoke effect, and they won't create a shaft of light effect,

There will be a couple of shots where the shaft will be needed. I guess the fog machines would take care of that. But should a smoque filter be used along too?

Thanks David.

Mostly so that less light is bouncing back onto your subjects. The brightness of your bluescreen can vary as long as it's even. Often you'll want to vary the brightness based on what's going to be replacing it- if you've got a very dark background, for instance, you might want to light the bluescreen 2 stops under.

Why should it make a difference since the blue is there just to create a vacuum or empty space when removed allowing you to replace it with whatever you want?

I'm really getting to the conclusion that the whole sharpness crazy is really not that important. People splitting hairs over numbers and technical specifications, going to the ridiculous length of arbitrarily labeling what they think is HD and calling 720p ?extended definition? (stupidest term I ever heard about HD). After seeing Soldier of God for the third time now, this time projected, I think 720p is as good of a choice for the bigger screen as 1080 or 35mm. It gives me the impression of being sharper than 16mm actually, most likely because of the lack of grain, and I was watching a projection from a DVD. On the top of that the movie was shot with a Pro35, which also softens the image. I would believe 720p shot with sharp lenses and or without a 35mm adapter and digitally projected at 720p would look amazingly better. It all depends on what you are after I guess. Just like with lenses where some people would prefer sharper Master prime lenses and others softer K35's or S3's lenses or some projects would benefit from a finer grain stock and others from a grainer one.

I like to use the 8-72mm Digital Primo zoom for almost everything; it's a good combination of size, weight, zoom ratio so that I don't have to switch lenses and deal with back-focusing all the time.

Is this a problem with the Digital Primo primes? Why do you need to deal with back focus when switching primes? If the FFD is set right, back focus shouldn't be a problem right?